About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
with respect to israel's growing challenges on its borders, particularly in lebanon with hezbollah in the south with gaza and egypt and, of course, with syria. the last thing that the united states wants is for netanyahu and the israeli people the belief that the president does not have his back and they would have to act unilaterally without due american consultation with israelis. >> and we know, michael, that the president is going to be going to ramallah to be talking to president mahmoud abbas. talked to one palestinian legislator who laid out conditions for returning to the negotiating table. either israel puts a six month freeze on the building in the west bank and they don't pursue international criminal court, or they come to some agreement on borders along the pre-1967 lines. do you see in any of this any hope for progress? >> well, unfortunately, not much, chris. i don't think that israel or frankly the united states are going to go along with those preconditions. and i think the only way negotiations are going to get restarted is if they're unconditional. and you know, one thing we
're really hezbollah or hamas, do you think the saudies are going to tell us? >> here in the united states they must satisfy a security process including an interview with a customs agent. i mean, that sounds more rigorous than when you just pass through customs when you're arriving in the u.s. and going through customs, no? >> in coordination, however, with the minister of interior of saudi arabia. in other words, it's a joint vetting process and the details, as you correctly point out, are not exactly clear at this point. yes, you're right that the united states government still has vetting appropriations, jurisdiction, over these applicants. >> megyn: how thorough will it it be? we're short on time, but i want to ask you, why are we doing this? we don't do it for germany and france, why are we doing it for the saudies. >> i think it has to do with all and the fact that, you remember after al attempted attack, the underwear bomber three years ago, saudi arabia was on the list of secondary countries to be inspected. and they complained bitterly, and it was taken off in weeks, and i think
't run someone for president and they did. we've seen hamas stronger as well as hezbollah, islamic jihad. and we've seen incredibly unstable situation in syria. when i was there on a congressional visit and we sat down with president netanyahu, one thing he asked, he was concerned about iran and the dominance and occurred and we have the iranian guard in syria. and their march toward having the nuclear device so they can have dominance. >> sean: that's all true and it's gotten worse, leslie, after the suck up to the world apology tour. and king be abdullah, jordan, says it's naive, that the muslim brotherhood are wolves in sheep's clothing, risky for him. and this president is giving 1.5 billion dollars, and f-16 jets and tanks it a guy that views the israelis as the descendents of apes and pigs. do you think that's a good foreign policy, leslie marshall? >> i don't think it's a good foreign policy to pretty much be-- is that a good policy. >> i'm answering, as to how we establish borders and whether we have further settlements in the west bank. >> sean: leslie, leslie, stop with the spi
from outside from iran on -- and hezbollah on one side and from saudi arabia, qatar and other states on the other. if there's any hope of diffusing the conflict, one way is going to have to deal with the issues of iranian support. iran is deeply concerned because syria is the major foothold in the arab world. there's a long standing syria through the decline or democrat myself of the assad regime, which i think is inevitable, will be a serious blow to iran. >> so if you have washington, sir, on one side of the scale and tehran on the other, who does baghdad more closely align with? >> well, our hope is, of course, that it will be a truly democratic regime which will be primarily loyal to the interests of the people in iraq and that their views will be consistent with others in supporting and strengthening democratic institutions. but as with many of the other countries in the middle east, there are a whole series of conflicting interests there and it will play out over a long period of time. but our interest is in democratic institutions, democratic societies who will serve their peo
's not about shiite and sunni and hezbollah. i think the real urgent issue i think they have to move forward because we are witness to a great tragedy in that part of the world. >> but, alex, it always turns back to the united states. afghanistan, after 9/11. iraq when, you know, a lot of our allies, other than french, the french were saying, got weapons of mass destruction we have to do about it now in syria. do we continue to exist in the middle of an international order where nothing is done unless it's kids from kansas and california and upstate new york and florida that do the fighting? >> yeah. i think this is one of those moments where, i think, you can almost sense the internal conflict in the white house giving the agagenocide. i don't know how the president will commit any troops given the state of affair of our troops when they return home, 600,000 veterans are stale waiting for their claims to send more boys and women, men and women over there. it would not seem to be any actual support for that. at the same time, how do you reconcile that with the blood shed? 70,000 people are d
will use it. the real danger is hezbollah gets it and would use it on israel. that's the great fear that i have. >>brian: general, how do you know all this stuff about agents? was that a focus of yours? >> i used to be in command of a unit that used to have that mission before we signed the chemical weapons treaty. i'm intimately familiar with using them, storing them, putting them on airplanes. this is with fighters we had them. and that is a very difficult area to work on. and i had a great deal of experience with that. of course we no longer use them and it's no longer in our inventory. >>brian: we know the president said that's a red line. we think we know where this stuff is housed. can we go with an airstrike, blow it up and not poison the surrounding population? >> no. i think you'd have secondary fallout and it would go -- i think you've got to seize it on the ground. you could do that. you'd have to hit it very extensively and try to pulverize it but there would be greater risk on that. >>brian: what are the chances of the return address on these chemicals being iraq? >> i think t
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)